"I plead guilty to having written the majority opinion, upholding Indiana's requirement that prospective voters prove their identity with a photo ID," Posner wrote. He also wrote in his memoirs that voter ID laws are "now widely regarded as a means of voter suppression, rather than fraud protection."

Posner says he's become "less conservative since the Republican Party started becoming goofy." Apparently he's become more senile as he's aged if he's reversing his position on voter ID laws.

The only people who "widely regard" voter ID laws as voter suppression are people who support voter fraud or the candidates who benefit from it.

Requiring voters to present identification at the polls is such rudimentary common sense that the real wonder is that there's any semblance of a debate over the issue.

Make no mistake about it, the debate is disingenuous. Somehow a vague concept that producing a photo ID is intimidating, a concept that cannot be supported and has absolutely no credibility in the realm of reality, is still tossed about as if it exists.

As these laws have taken effect in different states - Alabama's will in 2014 - it has been demonstrated over and over that minority voting strength has not dissipated. In fact, minority voter turnout was generally up in states that have enacted voter ID laws. There is no evidence that the poor cannot afford or obtain photo IDs.

The truly baseless claim is the one made by voter ID opponents. They say voter fraud is a figment of the imaginations of voter ID proponents.

Voter fraud really doesn't exist, they say. Voter fraud is hard to prove, and it's very hard to prosecute. But neither of these facts proves that it does not exist.

Some politicians and their supporters benefit from voter fraud. Voter ID laws make it harder for them to steal votes. That's why they don't like it.